Subject:O.J. Revisited

Keeping in mind....if he was even involved in any way he is guilty. I think he did it.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:resinchaseron05/03/04 at 2:11 pm

Guilty!

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:nallyon05/03/04 at 3:15 pm

I don't really care.

I remember the high speed chase; in fact, I remember watching it on TV.That's all I'm going to say. :-X

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/03/04 at 3:52 pm

Guilty.

And thanks to OJ's antics, we spent most of 1994 and 1995 being inundated by Geraldo Rivera, pontificating on the case and the legal system.

And that is a crime worse than murder itself. :P

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/03/04 at 4:12 pm

Guilty.

And thanks to OJ's antics, we spent most of 1994 and 1995 being inundated by Geraldo Rivera, pontificating on the case and the legal system.

And that is a crime worse than murder itself.Ã‚Â :PSad, but true >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:1992thousandon05/03/04 at 5:05 pm

-would you at least admit the possibility that OJ committed the crime.

*thinks*

No sir, my blackness won't permit it.-

Dave Chappelle ;D

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:zcritoon05/03/04 at 9:38 pm

Guilty or not guilty? I'm not 100% sure, but...

what I didn't like about the whole OJ Simpson thing is the way many people think that if you have money, fame and the endless love of the opposite sex you would never commit a crime like that. Or any crime for that matter.

People like that don't commit crimes like that. Right? Nor do they have other people do it for them. Right? It just has to be someone else! -- Sure.

Do I think OJ Simpson is guilty? I'm not 100% sure, but I believe he could have done it. Let's just say I'm 95% sure he did it. It would have just been a few minutes of his daily golf time to do it.

:(

;)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RainKingon05/04/04 at 9:14 am

as guilty as a preacher is of preaching

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:bj26on05/04/04 at 10:44 am

Methinks guilty. Were he and Cato hot for each other?

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/04/04 at 11:10 am

Methinks guilty. Were he and Cato hot for each other?Wouldn't suprise me.... :P

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Cheetaraon05/04/04 at 12:45 pm

I'm not sure if he did it or not. I know one thing for sure...it does pay to have MONEY. If that were one of my brothers they would have been convicted and thrown UNDER the jail. Let me just point out something. NO ONE cared when OJ beat the hell out of his first wife. He was abusive from DAY 1.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/04/04 at 4:31 pm

Guilty or not guilty? I'm not 100% sure, but...

what I didn't like about the whole OJ Simpson thing is the way many people think that if you have money, fame and the endless love of the opposite sex you would never commit a crime like that. Or any crime for that matter.

People like that don't commit crimes like that. Right? Nor do they have other people do it for them. Right? It just has to be someone else! -- Sure.

Successful people getting involved in HIGH CRIMES is an American tradition.

Remember John Holmes, the 1970's porn star?Ã‚Â Here is a guy who had money, fame, adulation, and all the women that a man could ever want.Ã‚Â Had the world by the tail.Ã‚Â Was a household name even to this day.Ã‚Â When I was in college we all wanted to be his alter ego, the infamous detective "Johnny Wadd".

And what did he do?Ã‚Â He cheated on his wife, beat the cr*p out of his girlfriend, got addicted to freebase cocaine, and ended up as a drug runner for the mob in LA.Ã‚Â Ultimately he was involved in a multimillion-dollar robbery that led to a quadruple murder, after which his wife and his girlfriend finally dropped him.

He ended up dead of A.I.D.S. at age 43, broke, alone, and wasted from drugs.

As a writer once said... "The more options that you have in life, the more chances you have to screw it up!"

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/04/04 at 8:08 pm

I hate to be a party pooper here, but I still don't think he's guilty. They never did prove that O.J. could run from Brentwood to LAX in 10 minutes (or whatever they said he did to commit the murder) and arrive in Chicago just a few minutes later. Plus, how did O.J.'s hands blow up before Cochran told him to wear the gloves he allegedly used to kill Nicole and Ron? This is not a reflection on thse two, but sorry, but too much reasonable doubt here. :(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/04/04 at 8:19 pm

I hate to be a party pooper here, but I still don't think he's guilty. They never did prove that O.J. could run from Brentwood to LAX in 10 minutes (or whatever they said he did to commit the murder) and arrive in Chicago just a few minutes later. Plus, how did O.J.'s hands blow up before Cochran told him to wear the gloves he allegedly used to kill Nicole and Ron? This is not a reflection on thse two, but sorry, but too much reasonable doubt here. :(

Indy...

The gloves had been soaked with blood, which means they got wet. Do you know what happens to fine leather gloves when they get wet? They shrink. I know 'cause I've runined a couple pair that way (water, not blood). And if you watch how OJ "tried" to put the glove on, you can see that he his purposely sticking his thumb out so the hand can't go into the glove.

All I can say is that if OJ were innocent then he had absolutely the WORST LUCK known to man. He lied about not having the very rare Bruno Magli shoes, which he was later shown to be wearing in the Buffalo Bills promo picture. His blood was all over the place, as well as Nicoles and whats-his-name's blood. Claims to have cut his hand in Chi-town, but no evidence of that whatsoever.

But the prosecutors blew it in this case. When the glove thing happened I immediiately said "reasonable doubt" because out of 12 people, SOMEONE is gonna buy it. Unless the prosecutors KNEW that the glove would fit, they should NEVER have had OJ try to put them on. Violated the First Rule of Trial Lawyering: "Thou shalt not ask questions if you do not already know what the answer will be".

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/05/04 at 12:03 am

I hate to be a party pooper here, but I still don't think he's guilty. They never did prove that O.J. could run from Brentwood to LAX in 10 minutes (or whatever they said he did to commit the murder) and arrive in Chicago just a few minutes later. Plus, how did O.J.'s hands blow up before Cochran told him to wear the gloves he allegedly used to kill Nicole and Ron? This is not a reflection on thse two, but sorry, but too much reasonable doubt here. :( To quote a line from the "Simpsons", the one where Mr. Burns got shot and Troy McClure said that ignoring ALL the DNA evidence would just be crazy....I know it's just a cartoon but it makes sense in the oj case....I will always say "Give O.J. The "Juice" >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/05/04 at 1:18 pm

I don't blame the prosecution for the glove thing, because if it did fit, maybe I would say guilty too. What really killed the prosecution was their boneheaded desicion to try a known racist, Police Officer Mark Fuhrmann when he really didn't have anything to do other than for the defense to place the race card, ot what they call the "credibility card".If O.J. is guilty of anything, it's being an uncaring fool who hated Nicole (and maybe Jews too) and didn't care who killed them. It's one thing to have a motive. It's another thing to prove guilt, which the prosecuters failed to do, IMHO.But the prosecutors blew it in this case.Ã‚Â When the glove thing happened I immediiately said "reasonable doubt" because out of 12 people, SOMEONE is gonna buy it.Ã‚Â Unless the prosecutors KNEW that the glove would fit, they should NEVER have had OJ try to put them on.Ã‚Â Violated the First Rule of Trial Lawyering:Ã‚Â "Thou shalt not ask questions if you do not already know what the answer will be".

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/05/04 at 2:45 pm

I don't blame the prosecution for the glove thing, because if it did fit, maybe I would say guilty too. What really killed the prosecution was their boneheaded desicion to try a known racist, Police Officer Mark Fuhrmann when he really didn't have anything to do other than for the defense to place the race card, ot what they call the "credibility card".If O.J. is guilty of anything, it's being an uncaring fool who hated Nicole (and maybe Jews too) and didn't care who killed them. It's one thing to have a motive. It's another thing to prove guilt, which the prosecuters failed to do, IMHO.

In my opinion, he got himself a bunch of moraly corrupt defense attorney (You KNOW how much and why I hate defense attorneys) and they took the case off of the subject...I also think the prosecution blew AND the Judge was the ring-leader of this "Circus" :( Johnnie Cocks...er also defended and got that moron off...the one who stomped on the truck drivers head and repeatedly threw bricks on his head as well.....after he and his homies dragged the poor guy from the truck during the race riots, and THAT was on tape for all the world to see >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Bobbyon05/05/04 at 5:20 pm

I didn't submit a vote because I didn't follow the case that much. I felt that he was guilty at the time - no reason just a feeling . . . That's not enough to make him guilty.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/05/04 at 5:25 pm

I don't blame the prosecution for the glove thing, because if it did fit, maybe I would say guilty too. What really killed the prosecution was their boneheaded desicion to try a known racist, Police Officer Mark Fuhrmann when he really didn't have anything to do other than for the defense to place the race card, ot what they call the "credibility card".If O.J. is guilty of anything, it's being an uncaring fool who hated Nicole (and maybe Jews too) and didn't care who killed them. It's one thing to have a motive. It's another thing to prove guilt, which the prosecuters failed to do, IMHO.

Mark Fuhrman redeemed his reputation as an ace detective by putting the killer of Martha Moxley behind bars.

Thanks for the good work, Mark ! 8)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/05/04 at 7:26 pm

I hate to disagree with you Rock, but I believe Johnnie Cochran defended the truck driver (sort of, he told Reginald Denny not to press further charges against Donald Williams and his cronies). I do understand your anger that it was caught on tape. (Likewise with OJ). It probably what cost 4 moronic cops their jobs when their beating of Rodney King caused similar feelings toward the LAPD.

Johnnie Cocks...er also defended and got that moron off...the one who stomped on the truck drivers head and repeatedly threw bricks on his head as well.....after he and his homies dragged the poor guy from the truck during the race riots, and THAT was on tape for all the world to see >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/05/04 at 7:29 pm

Lyric Boy, I will say somewhat redeemed, but Mark Fuhrmann will never get my forgiveness until he apologizes to the Brown, Goldman and Simpson families (other than the Juice) for his stupidity.

Mark Fuhrman redeemed his reputation as an ace detective by putting the killer of Martha Moxley behind bars.

Thanks for the good work, Mark !Ã‚Â Ã‚Â 8)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:AL-Bon05/05/04 at 8:08 pm

Guilty. I just love how after he was acquitted, he claimed that he'd dedicate the rest of his life to finding the "real killers." Hey, Orenthal, I'm no ace detective or anything, but I seriously doubt that you'll find the perpetrators of this horrible crime at, say, Pebble Beach, or Sawgrass, or Augusta National...

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/05/04 at 8:25 pm

Guilty. I just love how after he was acquitted, he claimed that he'd dedicate the rest of his life to finding the "real killers." Hey, Orenthal, I'm no ace detective or anything, but I seriously doubt that you'll find the perpetrators of this horrible crime at, say, Pebble Beach, or Sawgrass, or Augusta National...

That's the beauty of his investigative style, Al. The real killers will never see him coming. :D ;D :o

Subject:!

Written By:AL-Bon05/05/04 at 8:39 pm

That's the beauty of his investigative style, Al.Ã‚Â The real killers will never see him coming.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â :D ;D :oAnd the real killer is...PHIL MICKELSON!!! ;D ;D ;D

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/05/04 at 9:30 pm

I hate to disagree with you Rock, but I believe Johnnie Cochran defended the truck driver (sort of, he told Reginald Denny not to press further charges against Donald Williams and his cronies). I do understand your anger that it was caught on tape. (Likewise with OJ). It probably what cost 4 moronic cops their jobs when their beating of Rodney King caused similar feelings toward the LAPD.

Indy...I don't mind that you disagree with me. At the very least we agree on those Pacers! I can't think of the guys name but his girlfriend was in a group and she died a few years ago...lisa..Left-Eye" Lopes??? From TLC! She burned his house to the ground and got off....I know Cochran defended her :-\\

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/05/04 at 10:21 pm

You're talking about Andre Rison, the former receiver for the Colts and Falcons. Lisa Lopes was killed in a car crash in her native Puerto Rico. We can agree that the Pacers will beat the Heat, maybe not in 4, but hopefully soon and painlessly. And watch out for the Nuggets next year. :)

Indy...I don't mind that you disagree with me. At the very least we agree on those Pacers!Ã‚Â I can't think of the guys name but his girlfriend was in a group and she died a few years ago...lisa..Left-Eye" Lopes???Ã‚Â From TLC!Ã‚Â She burned his house to the ground and got off....I know Cochran defended her :-\\

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Hairsprayon05/06/04 at 12:04 am

1) O.J. attempted to flee with tons of money. It was a poor attempt, but nevertheless...

2) He had a history of severe physical abuse towards Nicole.

3) He had motives.

4) He had opportunity.

I believe his being found innocent was strictly due to prosecuting errors and technicalities.

And he was found guilty in a civil suit.

Ok.

Guilty it is.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 10:07 am

We can agree that the Pacers will beat the Heat, maybe not in 4, but hopefully soon and painlessly. And watch out for the Nuggets next year. :)

Thanks Indy...Go Pacers!

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 10:31 am

1) O.J. attempted to flee with tons of money. It was a poor attempt, but nevertheless...

2) He had a history of severe physical abuse towards Nicole.

3) He had motives.

4) He had opportunity.

I believe his being found innocent was strictly due to prosecuting errors and technicalities.

And he was found guilty in a civil suit.

Ok.

Guilty it is.

Like I've said for years.... now....http://www.animationlibrary.com/Animation11/Science_and_Body/Physics/Electic_bar.gifGive O.J. The JUICE!

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 10:32 am

Mark Fuhrman redeemed his reputation as an ace detective by putting the killer of Martha Moxley behind bars.

Thanks for the good work, Mark ! 8)Thanks, LyricBoy...but don't EVEN get me started on that awful Kennedy clan >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/06/04 at 1:34 pm

I won't belabor the subject because I don't really like O.J., but he was found not guilty in a court of law and the second trial is moot because, according to common law, it constitutes double jeopardy. But Michael Skakel is a creep and I'm glad he is behind bars. It doesn't redeem Mark Fuhrmann, though, because his racism will be there no matter what. :(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:zcritoon05/06/04 at 3:23 pm

I won't belabor the subject because I don't really like O.J., but he was found not guilty in a court of law and the second trial is moot because, according to common law, it constitutes double jeopardy. But Michael Skakel is a creep and I'm glad he is behind bars. It doesn't redeem Mark Fuhrmann, though, because his racism will be there no matter what. :(

Indy Gent,

You said..."...boneheaded desicion to try a known racist, Police Officer Mark Fuhrmann"

and

"...but Mark Fuhrmann will never get my forgiveness until he apologizes to the Brown, Goldman and Simpson families (other than the Juice) for his stupidity."

and

"It doesn't redeem Mark Fuhrmann, though, because his racism will be there no matter what."

I'm curious, how is Mark Fuhrmann a racist in your eyes? Based on what? What did he do?

???

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 3:44 pm

Indy Gent,

You said..."...boneheaded desicion to try a known racist, Police Officer Mark Fuhrmann"

and

"...but Mark Fuhrmann will never get my forgiveness until he apologizes to the Brown, Goldman and Simpson families (other than the Juice) for his stupidity."

and

"It doesn't redeem Mark Fuhrmann, though, because his racism will be there no matter what."

I'm curious, how is Mark Fuhrmann a racist in your eyes? Based on what? What did he do?

???

He was on a tape saying the "N" word...I don't remember all the details.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/06/04 at 4:07 pm

He was on a tape saying the "N" word...I don't remember all the details.

So he used the "N" word. Does that mean that we must banish from society every black man who uses the word "Whitey" or "cracker"? Or Indians who use the word "paleface"? Or Japanese who use the word "roundeye"? Or people of Mexican descent who use the word "Anglo" or "Gringo"?

Does this mean that all the rappers who use the "N" word are to be banished from society as well?

The First Amendment is under attack by self-appointed "politically correct" liberals who would like to take away our freedom of speech soon after they take away our guns and money.

Not too long ago, a black Congresswoman said that "All you Cubans look alike to me". If a white man or a Cuban had said that about blacks, he would have been burned at the stake. The "PC Police" were nowhere to be found...evidenc of the illegitimacy of their "cause".

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 4:13 pm

So he used the "N" word. Does that mean that we must banish from society every black man who uses the word "Whitey" or "cracker"? Or Indians who use the word "paleface"? Or Japanese who use the word "roundeye"? Or people of Mexican descent who use the word "Anglo" or "Gringo"?

Does this mean that all the rappers who use the "N" word are to be banished from society as well?

The First Amendment is under attack by self-appointed "politically correct" liberals who would like to take away our freedom of speech soon after they take away our guns and money.

Not too long ago, a black Congresswoman said that "All you Cubans look alike to me". If a white man or a Cuban had said that about blacks, he would have been burned at the stake. The "PC Police" were nowhere to be found...evidenc of the illegitimacy of their "cause".Yeah...it's reverse racism...but you never hear much about that :(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/06/04 at 4:54 pm

I don't like any of these words to describe minorities. These slurs may be protected by the First Amendment, but repeated use falls under the Hate Crimes bills. There are other words that can be used other than those that illicit hatred. And besides that, LB, you have to admit that white people have been using slurs since slavery and that they still have the numbers and power to make the rules.

So he used the "N" word.Ã‚Â Does that mean that we must banish from society every black man who uses the word "Whitey" or "cracker"?Ã‚Â Or Indians who use the word "paleface"?Ã‚Â Or Japanese who use the word "roundeye"?Ã‚Â Or people of Mexican descent who use the word "Anglo" or "Gringo"?

Does this mean that all the rappers who use the "N" word are to be banished from society as well?

The First Amendment is under attack by self-appointed "politically correct" liberals who would like to take away our freedom of speech soon after they take away our guns and money.

Not too long ago, a black Congresswoman said that "All you Cubans look alike to me".Ã‚Â If a white man or a Cuban had said that about blacks, he would have been burned at the stake.Ã‚Â The "PC Police" were nowhere to be found...evidenc of the illegitimacy of their "cause".

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 5:04 pm

you have to admit that white people have been using slurs since slavery and that they still have the numbers and power to make the rules.

Indy, I'm just jumping in here for a quick post....I see more and more how the minority rappers are gettin a TON of money...paying outrageuous amounts to "Party"...there was some special on VH1 (Which I usually aviod nowadays) that said one guy spend something like half a million dollars for one night in a dance hall. They throw money around like water. It won't be long before puff-diddy-bang-bang owns some sports team and turns the team into a bunch of thugs ::) I was NEVER for slavery but this constant whing they do about thier ancestors is wearing thin. :-\\

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:zcritoon05/06/04 at 6:15 pm

So he used the "N" word.Ã‚Â Does that mean that we must banish from society every black man who uses the word "Whitey" or "cracker"?Ã‚Â Or Indians who use the word "paleface"?Ã‚Â Or Japanese who use the word "roundeye"?Ã‚Â Or people of Mexican descent who use the word "Anglo" or "Gringo"?

Does this mean that all the rappers who use the "N" word are to be banished from society as well?

The First Amendment is under attack by self-appointed "politically correct" liberals who would like to take away our freedom of speech soon after they take away our guns and money.

Not too long ago, a black Congresswoman said that "All you Cubans look alike to me".Ã‚Â If a white man or a Cuban had said that about blacks, he would have been burned at the stake.Ã‚Â The "PC Police" were nowhere to be found...evidenc of the illegitimacy of their "cause".

Does that mean Dave Chappelle is a racist?

::)

(I agree with you, Lyric Boy and R&RFan)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/06/04 at 7:23 pm

I don't like any of these words to describe minorities. These slurs may be protected by the First Amendment, but repeated use falls under the Hate Crimes bills. There are other words that can be used other than those that illicit hatred. And besides that, LB, you have to admit that white people have been using slurs since slavery and that they still have the numbers and power to make the rules.

Any "Hate Crime Bill" that restricts the use of these words (other than when used in a THREATENING MANNER) is destined to be ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. That's a "slam dunk" decision, and it is the rule of law.

The Constitution does not say that "restriction of speech is OK if it restricts speech of the majority".

I would also submit that ALL ethnic groups have been using slurs since the beginning of spoken language. It has not just been the purview of whites.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 7:32 pm

Any "Hate Crime Bill" that restricts the use of these words (other than when used in a THREATENING MANNER) is destined to be ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. That's a "slam dunk" decision, and it is the rule of law.

The Constitution does not say that "restriction of speech is OK if it restricts speech of the majority".

I would also submit that ALL ethnic groups have been using slurs since the beginning of spoken language. It has not just been the purview of whites.LyricBoy....don't you realize that reverse predjiduce does NOT exist ::)...there is No such thing.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Bobbyon05/06/04 at 7:40 pm

If a black man calls himself a ****** is he racist? ???

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 7:46 pm

If a black man calls himself a ****** is he racist? ???Good question, Bobby...he may be a "Self-racist"....anyway, isn't it interesting how on the Movie Brians Song from 1970....I missed the crappy re-make a few years back after seeing the low-lights....Brian Picollo called Gale Sayers that throughout the movie ??? There was no big uproar back then by any black community that I'm aware of :-\\

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Bobbyon05/06/04 at 8:14 pm

Good question, Bobby...he may be a "Self-racist"....anyway, isn't it interesting how on the Movie Brians Song from 1970....I missed the crappy re-make a few years back after seeing the low-lights....Brian Picollo called Gale Sayers that throughout the movie ??? There was no big uproar back then by any black community that I'm aware of :-\\

How many times did you hear Richard Pryor cry '******' on his stand up shows? One of his shows was called 'That ****** is crazy'. I'm not trying to be subversive, it's just that I thought ****** was more of an identity thing that has been perverted over the years.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/06/04 at 10:23 pm

How many times did you hear Richard Pryor cry '******' on his stand up shows? One of his shows was called 'That ****** is crazy'. I'm not trying to be subversive, it's just that I thought ****** was more of an identity thing that has been perverted over the years.

Good point, Bobby ;) But you best not call me "Honky" ;D BTW....let me just also say that I HATE that idiotic organization...the kkk....a few years back they had a parade in Denver....I yelled some things at them like....Hey guys...you'd better hurry, the porno shop is having a sale on inflatable sheep...and...Hey, how come when you introduce me to your wife and sister, I only see ONE woman standing there! I say DOWN with ANY race supremacy >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/07/04 at 7:50 pm

To put it another way, as a short boy in grade school of Asian heritage, I was called every Chinese and Japanese slur only by the white kids. The black kids resorted to mocking the Asian dialogue (making "ching-chong" noises). Both were wrong in my opinion, and I have grown up to both condemn and tolerate this mean spirited garbage. If you were to believe in the American History taught by our education systems, most of the murders, either racial or otherwise, were killed by white males. And that more of them got away with it. It's up to us to decide which history is right and which is wrong. I've been both accused of being racist and victimized by racism. And I assume so have some of you. I've have learned to grown up and tolerate all racial bias and backbiting, although it wasn't easy. :- :-\\ 8)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/07/04 at 11:39 pm

To put it another way, as a short boy in grade school of Asian heritage, I was called every Chinese and Japanese slur only by the white kids. The black kids resorted to mocking the Asian dialogue (making "ching-chong" noises). Both were wrong in my opinion, and I have grown up to both condemn and tolerate this mean spirited garbage. If you were to believe in the American History taught by our education systems, most of the murders, either racial or otherwise, were killed by white males. And that more of them got away with it. It's up to us to decide which history is right and which is wrong. I've been both accused of being racist and victimized by racism. And I assume so have some of you. I've have learned to grown up and tolerate all racial bias and backbiting, although it wasn't easy. :- :-\\ 8) I am very sorry that you had to endure that kind of life, IndyGent :-\\

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/08/04 at 6:43 am

If a black man calls himself a N-word is he racist?Ã‚Â ???

No, he would not be a racist. But he DOES lose the credibility to feign indignation when somebody else uses that word.

In my opinion, use of the N-word is low-class and vulgar. But, at the same time, our Constitution protects the use of speech as long as it is not used in a threatening manner or to incite violence.

People who call for the resignations of public figures who use this word have to look WITHIN THEMSELVES as to why they would want to restrict free speech. And they need to be consistent in their proposed "language banishment" which they certainly are not.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:MaxwellSmarton05/08/04 at 8:00 am

OJ DID IT!!Ã‚Â Even his mother said so.They never even came up with a (plausible) second suspect.

OJ benefited most from a jaded jury who had Rodney King fresh in their minds.Ã‚Â The jaded jury is an advantage this Scott Peterson punk won't have, that's for sure.

And I wish African Americans would not use th N-word as a term of endearment.Ã‚Â As a familiar shibboleth it presents too big a double standard.Ã‚Â It's the most inflammatory and despised word in the English language, and deservedly so, when used by whites.Ã‚Â Thus, Blacks owe it to themselves to eschew it as well.

I'm glad Michael Kennedy got his just deserts for murdering Martha Moxley, but I still don't care much for Mr. Fuhrman.Ã‚Â Well, it's hard to say he got his "just deserts" when he got way with it for 26 years.Ã‚Â Better late than never, though. Ironically, if the juvenile Michael Kennedy 'fessed up to his crime, he would have been over and done with his punishment decades ago

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Koopon05/08/04 at 8:53 am

I hate to be a party pooper here, but I still don't think he's guilty. They never did prove that O.J. could run from Brentwood to LAX in 10 minutes (or whatever they said he did to commit the murder) and arrive in Chicago just a few minutes later. Plus, how did O.J.'s hands blow up before Cochran told him to wear the gloves he allegedly used to kill Nicole and Ron? This is not a reflection on thse two, but sorry, but too much reasonable doubt here. :(

I've always had a problem with the timing of things, too.Ã‚Â I think of how bloody the killer had to have been....how did he not get blood all inside his vehicle (didn't they only find a spot or spots?) and by the time he would've reached his home, some of the blood would have dried, making it VERY difficult to wash off.Ã‚Â Considering he didn't have any visible blood on him when Kato and the driver saw him, I don't think he could've washed it off in the short time he had to shower afterward.Ã‚Â I've never thought that he was the one that actually stabbed them.Ã‚Â So I agree, there is a lot of reasonable doubt.

However, I've always thought that he had something to do with it...whether he hired someone to do it or knew who actually did it.Ã‚Â

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Bobbyon05/08/04 at 9:42 am

Good point, Bobby ;) But you best not call me "Honky"Ã‚Â ;D BTW....let me just also say that I HATE that idiotic organization...the kkk....a few years back they had a parade in Denver....I yelled some things at them like....Hey guys...you'd better hurry, the porno shop is having a sale on inflatable sheep...and...Hey, how come when you introduce me to your wife and sister, I only see ONE woman standing there!Ã‚Â I say DOWN with ANY race supremacy >:(

I'm a 'honky' too, Rocknrollfan. I have no idea where this name comes from.

The KKK have their own ideas. They certainly aren't popular ones. What has inflatable sheep got to do with the clan? Is it relevant or just an insult?

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/08/04 at 12:38 pm

OJ DID IT!!Ã‚Â Even his mother said so.They never even came up with a (plausible) second suspect.

OJ benefited most from a jaded jury who had Rodney King fresh in their minds.Ã‚Â The jaded jury is an advantage this Scott Peterson punk won't have, that's for sure.

And I wish African Americans would not use th N-word as a term of endearment.Ã‚Â As a familiar shibboleth it presents too big a double standard.Ã‚Â It's the most inflammatory and despised word in the English language, and deservedly so, when used by whites.Ã‚Â Thus, Blacks owe it to themselves to eschew it as well.

I'm glad Michael Kennedy got his just deserts for murdering Martha Moxley, but I still don't care much for Mr. Fuhrman.Ã‚Â Well, it's hard to say he got his "just deserts" when he got way with it for 26 years.Ã‚Â Better late than never, though.Ã‚Â Ironically, if the juvenile Michael Kennedy 'fessed up to his crime, he would have been over and done with his punishment decades agoIt's like hearing gay people call each other the other "F" word....and yet they have a right to be offended when a straight calls them that. I don't much like Furman either but at least he bagged a Kennedy. I mean after Marilyn Monroe committed "Suicide"....and Ted "Killer Kennedy" did nothing to save Mary Joe Kopekne in 1969...and waited days before calling police (And he STILL is voted into the senate)....and of course th4e Kennedy that raped a girl and got away with it, forgot his name, it's nice one of them got caught and is finally being punished.....hopefully >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/08/04 at 12:49 pm

Mark Fuhrman is Da Man

Who else do you know who actually sent a Kennedy to the slammer? My guess is that Martha Moxley's mother is glad to know there is a man by the name of Mark Fuhrman, after everyone else gave her a jack job for 25 years.

It also shows how good a detective he really is. A man is more than one word.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Bobbyon05/09/04 at 12:03 pm

It's actually from the movie Porkys II...where they "Take Care" of the clan...it was born from low class people....like the clan screwing around, literally, with farm animal and such :o

Ah right. :)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Cheetaraon05/10/04 at 10:27 am

As a black woman, I personally never use racial slurs.Ã‚Â I don't like ANY of them.Ã‚Â It's stupid and insulting.Ã‚Â It angers me when I see and hear other black people refer to one another as N***A.Ã‚Â Some people say it takes on a different meaning.Ã‚Â I disagree.Ã‚Â What's the difference between N***A and N****R?Ã‚Â Ã‚Â It's the same thing to me therefore I don't use it.Ã‚Â Slurs originated during slavery and have been passed on to generations.Ã‚Â There have been racism within the black community...darker shades vs. lighter shades.Ã‚Â It's ridiculous!Ã‚Â It's an outrage!Ã‚Â However, I can understand where that stems from...slavery.Ã‚Â The lighter shades were separated from the darker shades to perform different chores.Ã‚Â Some thought the lighter shades were being favored more so then the darker ones.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Bottomline, they were ALL slaves.Ã‚Â

Anyway, I always had a problem with the whole OJ case.Ã‚Â Like I mentioned before, I don't know if he's guilty or not.Ã‚Â It's a shame that two people died.Ã‚Â I do have to point out that OJ was ALWAYS a violent man.Ã‚Â He had a history of beating the hell out of his first wife Marguerite (who happened to be a black woman) and no one cared.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â In my opinion, getting away from the lunatic was the BEST thing she ever did.Ã‚Â Unfortunately, his second wife wasn't so lucky.Ã‚Â Nicole didn't deserve it nor did anyone else who was involved.Ã‚Â

:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/10/04 at 11:42 am

As a black woman, I personally never use racial slurs. I don't like ANY of them. It's stupid and insulting. It angers me when I see and hear other black people refer to one another as N***A. Some people say it takes on a different meaning. I disagree. What's the difference between N***A and N****R? It's the same thing to me therefore I don't use it. Slurs originated during slavery and have been passed on to generations. There have been racism within the black community...darker shades vs. lighter shades. It's ridiculous! It's an outrage! However, I can understand where that stems from...slavery. The lighter shades were separated from the darker shades to perform different chores. Some thought the lighter shades were being favored more so then the darker ones. Bottomline, they were ALL slaves.

Anyway, I always had a problem with the whole OJ case. Like I mentioned before, I don't know if he's guilty or not. It's a shame that two people died. I do have to point out that OJ was ALWAYS a violent man. He had a history of beating the hell out of his first wife Marguerite (who happened to be a black woman) and no one cared. In my opinion, getting away from the lunatic was the BEST thing she ever did. Unfortunately, his second wife wasn't so lucky. Nicole didn't deserve it nor did anyone else who was involved.

:(Nicely stated, Cheetara :)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:SuperFreakon05/10/04 at 8:03 pm

Guilty, i don't see how anybody could possibly think otherwise!

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/10/04 at 9:07 pm

I do, and it's because it was never proven that in a criminal court. He was found guilty by civil court. But that's double jeopardy. If you judge the man by his reaction before the trial and after the original verdict, it would be so easy, in the realm of public opinion, to condemn him. Unfortunately, the jury didn't see any of it, and it's their opinion that counts. Sorry, superfreak!Ã‚Â I'm not insulting anyone's inteligence here. But the mind has to decide cases, not the heart. :-Guilty, i don't see how anybody could possibly think otherwise!

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/10/04 at 9:10 pm

Lyric Boy: Will see if Fuhrmann is "Da Man" when he runs for public office in the future. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't want him on their case no matter how good he is. :(Mark Fuhrman is Da Man

Who else do you know who actually sent a Kennedy to the slammer?Ã‚Â My guess is that Martha Moxley's mother is glad to know there is a man by the name of Mark Fuhrman, after everyone else gave her a jack job for 25 years.

It also shows how good a detective he really is.Ã‚Â A man is more than one word.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:StarskyHutch76on05/10/04 at 9:11 pm

Well, me and my partner would have handled the case different. Captain Doby would've been able to comfortably retire had we been on this case and busted this thug >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/10/04 at 9:20 pm

And Huggy Bear would have found the real killer by now. ;)Well, me and my partner would have handled the case different. Captain Doby would've been able to comfortably retire had we been on this case and busted this thug >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:StarskyHutch76on05/14/04 at 10:16 am

And Huggy Bear would have found the real killer by now. ;)

If he did, we would get the credit ;D

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:bj26on05/14/04 at 11:54 am

I think Kato Kaelan could have been used more strategically. He could have been framed for the murders, then he would have sang like a canary on the stand rather than take the fall for whoever the guilty party was. If the tactic didn't work and based on evidence, he could have easily been cleared. He was vague and useless as a witness even though he probably knew a lot more.

Might be funny to arrest Kaelan for the murder right now, would love to see the look on his goofy face!

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/14/04 at 7:37 pm

TWO people actually thought he wasn't guilty??!! O-My F-ing GOD...HE is the one who said he would find the "Real Killers"....and you STILL think he didn't do it.... ???

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Steve2891on05/14/04 at 8:58 pm

If you read through all the evidence, it's pretty obvious he did it. Man, was I into this trial, when I was 12 and 13. I don't know if I could sit through it nowadays, though, because I did bored very easily, for some reason.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/17/04 at 12:50 pm

Most of the "evidence" was either rejected or refutable in court, the others are iffy, because the lab screwed up the DNA test results. As for O.J. saying he would find the real killers, how many people actually thought he'd even try? Just because he wanted these people dead doesn't mean he actually did it. If you read through all the evidence, it's pretty obvious he did it. Man, was I into this trial, when I was 12 and 13. I don't know if I could sit through it nowadays, though, because I did bored very easily, for some reason.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/17/04 at 1:14 pm

Most of the "evidence" was either rejected or refutable in court, the others are iffy, because the lab screwed up the DNA test results. As for O.J. saying he would find the real killers, how many people actually thought he'd even try? Just because he wanted these people dead doesn't mean he actually did it.

Indy, all I meant to say was that he doesn't seem to now and has never, IMO, shown a reaction that an innocent person would show when losing a loved one...especially in such a brutally calculated way. He continues to find new women to beat up and has never really explained himself as far as I'm concerned....but that's just me ;)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Steve2891on05/17/04 at 5:31 pm

Most of the "evidence" was either rejected or refutable in court, the others are iffy, because the lab screwed up the DNA test results. As for O.J. saying he would find the real killers, how many people actually thought he'd even try? Just because he wanted these people dead doesn't mean he actually did it.

Just because they were sloppy, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Just because got got off of it, in a court of law, doesn't mean he didn't do it. The justice system, can and does get manipulated. I also read most the jury was confused, and didn't seem to care about the DNA Evidence. Plus, there's tons of other evidence, the prosecution didn't submit.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/17/04 at 5:54 pm

Just because they were sloppy, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Just because got got off of it, in a court of law, doesn't mean he didn't do it. The justice system, can and does get manipulated. I also read most the jury was confused, and didn't seem to care about the DNA Evidence. Plus, there's tons of other evidence, the prosecution didn't submit.Lest we forget that tiny little "Civil Trial"....GUILTY!

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Indy Genton05/17/04 at 8:03 pm

Maybe so, but it caused reasonable doubt. And maybe the prosecution didn't submit the evidence because they knew it wasn't enough to convict him. Men have been aquitted before for "tons of evidence". Nowadays you need more than "circumstantial evidence". Nothing against the Browns or Goldmans (maybe against Denise Brown), but I'm not convinced. :(

Just because they were sloppy, doesn't mean he didn't do it. Just because got got off of it, in a court of law, doesn't mean he didn't do it. The justice system, can and does get manipulated. I also read most the jury was confused, and didn't seem to care about the DNA Evidence. Plus, there's tons of other evidence, the prosecution didn't submit.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Steve28910on05/17/04 at 9:09 pm

I read they didn't submit it, because they thought the DNA evidence was enough. One piece of evidence they didn't submit, was knife wounds on the victims matching a knife OJ bought at a store, sometime before the murders.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:StarskyHutch76on05/18/04 at 9:06 am

Didn't they take auction off his Heisman Trophy after he was found guilty at th civil trial ;D

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:bj26on05/18/04 at 11:54 am

I know you all have great arguements and knowledge, so did the prosecutors and the defense (who naturally didn't want to let a murderer go free). The trick was to get the defense to agree to a conviction, but the prosecution failed to do it.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/18/04 at 7:17 pm

I know you all have great arguements and knowledge, so did the prosecutors and the defense (who naturally didn't want to let a murderer go free). The trick was to get the defense to agree to a conviction, but the prosecution failed to do it.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â The prosecuters definatly messed up....Johnnie Cocran and his cronies turned it into a trail about race and "Judge" Ito was the ring leader of this circus. At least the Civil trial was handled much more responsibly and they all stuck to the FACTS.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/18/04 at 8:31 pm

Didn't they take auction off his Heisman Trophy after he was found guilty at th civil trial ;D

I wonder if they had to wipe any blood off of it prior to the auction ? :-\\

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/18/04 at 9:34 pm

I wonder if they had to wipe any blood off of it prior to the auction ? :-\\Probably not since some of the blood was in the Bronco, on his socks and don't forget those bloody clothes he dumped at the airport as he fled to Chicago!

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/20/04 at 1:35 pm

Thanks to the Simpson trial and incident, the term "O.J." no longer is used to describe orange juice any more. Its meaning has probably (forever) been usurped by an infamous incident.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:AL-Bon05/21/04 at 9:08 pm

Q: What do O.J. Simpson and Mike Shanahan have in common?

A: They both drive slow white Broncos. ;D ;D ;D

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/21/04 at 10:28 pm

Q: What do O.J. Simpson and Mike Shanahan have in common?

A: They both drive slow white Broncos. ;D ;D ;DHey...easy now! Mike has some Super Bowl Wins and never killed anyone...while NO-J murdered 2 people and never made it to the big game ::)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/21/04 at 11:29 pm

Which former player for the Buffalo Bills committed the worst crime?

-OJ Simpson for the double murder of Nicole and Ron?

...or...

-Jim Kelly for losing four trips to the Super Bowl?

It is a tough call...

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon05/22/04 at 11:27 am

Which former player for the Buffalo Bills committed the worst crime?

-OJ Simpson for the double murder of Nicole and Ron?

...or...

-Jim Kelly for losing four trips to the Super Bowl?

It is a tough call...Hey LyricBoy, let's not forget how Mr. Kelly also thinks NO-J is innocenthttp://elouai.com/images/yahoo/34.gif

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon05/22/04 at 3:11 pm

Hey LyricBoy, let's not forget how Mr. Kelly also thinks NO-J is innocenthttp://elouai.com/images/yahoo/34.gif

That would explain a few things. ::)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon06/14/04 at 10:03 pm

What's the difference between Johnnie Cochran and a bucket of crap? The Bucket! 10 years have gone by and he continues to be the jerk that he always was...FU OJ >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Just visiting for now..on06/14/04 at 10:25 pm

I think he's guilty.Ã‚Â But, I do admit, after seeing the way the whole trial played out, I suppose there was a case made for 'reasonable doubt'.Ã‚Â Those cops weren't too bright during the whole event, in my opinion.Ã‚Â And I think that they shot THEMSELVES in the foot, what with their lack of attention to detail, losing evidence, and in, well, Mark Fuhrman.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â >:(

It was kind of funny, in an unfunny kind of way, when he was first put on trial for it.Ã‚Â I was having a hard time picturing him as a murderer--though I didn't ever watch football, I had seen him in the "Naked Gun" movies, after all.Ã‚Â But, where I lived at the time, I was seeing a lot of black people calling him innocent, as opposed to the white people.Ã‚Â I remember as I was leaving work one day, two black ladies were coming into work.Ã‚Â They asked me what I thought.Ã‚Â The younger black girl said "No way--OJ was framed!"Ã‚Â nothing else, just that statement.Ã‚Â Then the older black lady said, "Oh, come on, "Susie-Q" you KNOW that man killed those people!"I just found it interesting, proving, to me at least, that it wasn't as much of a race issue as I had originally thought.Ã‚Â

Course, then my mom always said that at the end of the trial, when he was found "not guilty", that he and another black man in the jury box gave each other a "black power" symbol...I didn't see that, and likely wouldn't have recongnized it anyway..but I think that it raised some questions to me.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â ???

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon06/15/04 at 7:19 am

I think that it's really low that O.J. was accusing Denise Brown Simpson of profiteering over her sister's murder. >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:PoPCultureGirlon06/16/04 at 8:09 am

Guilty!

Fer sure! ;)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:eightiesfanon06/16/04 at 1:01 pm

Not only do I think OJ is guilty, I wish they would have locked him up in the same cell with Charles Manson! >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:nallyon06/17/04 at 1:57 pm

Not only do I think OJ is guilty, I wish they would have locked him up in the same cell with Charles Manson!Ã‚Â >:(

I've always thought he was guilty. In fact, today marks the 10-year anniversary of the high-speed chase in his white Ford Bronco. I remember, because we were having my middle-school graduation party at my house, and one of my friends told me that the chase was going on, so I turned on the TV, and within a few minutes, all of us were glued to the TV, watching O.J. ::)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:LyricBoyon06/17/04 at 2:13 pm

I saw a show on A&E last night that covered OJ in retrospective. They had interviews with a couple of the jurors. Some of the jurors expressed a real and believeable "reasonable doubt" about OJ, but two of them came across as completely, thoroughly stupid without any common sense at all.

One of the jurors said "the prosecution had nothing but garbage". That is obviously a stupid statement. To say "there was alot of evidence, but The Glove raised reasonable doubt" is a more credible statement.

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon10/28/04 at 6:13 pm

I saw a show on A&E last night that covered OJ in retrospective.Ã‚Â They had interviews with a couple of the jurors.Ã‚Â Some of the jurors expressed a real and believeable "reasonable doubt" about OJ, but two of them came across as completely, thoroughly stupid without any common sense at all.

One of the jurors said "the prosecution had nothing but garbage".Ã‚Â That is obviously a stupid statement.Ã‚Â To say "there was alot of evidence, but The Glove raised reasonable doubt" is a more credible statement.But then Charles would have to share his computer and television ::) >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:zcritoon10/28/04 at 6:36 pm

But then Charles would have to share his computer and television ::) >:(

You waited over 4 months to answer that post? ::)(and I think he prefers to be called Charlie)

;D :)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon10/28/04 at 6:43 pm

You waited over 4 months to answer that post?Ã‚Â ::)(and I think he prefers to be called Charlie)

;D :)

Naw...I "Reposted" it instead of using a post to put *bump*....I just figured this all out....sorry :-\\

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Davesteron10/29/04 at 1:06 am

Guilty.

And thanks to OJ's antics, we spent most of 1994 and 1995 being inundated by Geraldo Rivera, pontificating on the case and the legal system.

And that is a crime worse than murder itself.Ã‚Â :P

No, his moustache is...

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Elvison10/29/04 at 11:25 am

Guity -AGAIN! Why would anyone innocent run away in a Bronco with a gun to your own head? He did this before Johnnie "blood on his hands for money" Cochran got to him to tell him how to "compose" himself for the media event that was taking place. It was a crime of rage- the killer (O.J.) was very angry at Nicole for giving it up to that younger guy thus the extreme hacking that left them looking like they'd been run through a shredder. A simple murder would have been a quick- Bam and gone with no blood to splatter. This was personal and up close and took some time to inflict so many wounds. The glove? that was the silliest example of over acting (which O J was known for) i've ever seen. No soap star could have done better. It's easy try this at home- take a glove and expand your hand as if your were stretching the tendons as far as you can now try and force the glove on while resisting (acting classes teach this a lot) and make sure your other hand seems to be struggling to get it on- combined with a painful expression on your face. God will be the last judge soon for O J and Johnnie and he knows the truth! O J is Guilty as Kerry is phoney.Don't get me started.....

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon10/29/04 at 3:01 pm

O J is Guilty as Kerry is phoney.Don't get me started.....I'd LOVE to have you start on Kerry (I agree with you) but you should do that over in the current political threads so you can be hacked to pieces, like I did ::)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Elvison11/03/04 at 11:58 am

I'd love to get over to that arena, especially now- but they can't handle me because "they can't handle the truth". I love to be shredded to pieces- it makes me angry and they wouldn't like me when i get angry- Bring it on.. Don't get me started....

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Jen82on02/05/05 at 1:01 pm

Guilty >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:jiminyon02/05/05 at 8:15 pm

I hate to be a party pooper here, but I still don't think he's guilty. They never did prove that O.J. could run from Brentwood to LAX in 10 minutes (or whatever they said he did to commit the murder) and arrive in Chicago just a few minutes later. Plus, how did O.J.'s hands blow up before Cochran told him to wear the gloves he allegedly used to kill Nicole and Ron? This is not a reflection on thse two, but sorry, but too much reasonable doubt here. :( if you ever noticed him putting on the gloves he held his hands stiff, when I put my gloves on i must wiggle my fingers into the glove for if I didn't my own gloves wouldn't fit and also wasn't he wearing rubber gloves as he was putting on these gloves? most things that are made of rubber must be lubricated to get into a tight space. another example: try putting a sweater on a child who refuses to raise it's arms, is the sweater going to go on him? no of course it won't so we must say the sweater won't fit ::)

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:Full_House_Fanon02/06/05 at 11:50 pm

O.J. is absolutely 100% guiltly. I sure hope he doesn't kill anyone else :o, although even though he's not in jail (a COMPLETE injustice) I'm sure he's getting his in that nobody wants to hang around him. That must be really depressing, so don't feel too bad he's not suffering in jail (though I do think he should be in there because it's fair and so he can't kill anybody else).

Anyway, the guy's crazy AND guilty. Damn judges care more about letting the criminal off then protecting the innocent >:(

Subject:Re: O.J. Revisited

Written By:RockandRollFanon02/09/05 at 3:29 pm

O.J. is absolutely 100% guiltly.Ã‚Â I sure hope he doesn't kill anyone elseÃ‚Â :o, although even though he's not in jail (a COMPLETE injustice) I'm sure he's getting his in that nobody wants to hang around him.Ã‚Â That must be really depressing, so don't feel too bad he's not suffering in jail (though I do think he should be in there because it's fair and so he can't kill anybody else).

Anyway, the guy's crazy AND guilty.Ã‚Â darn judges care more about letting the criminal off then protecting the innocentÃ‚Â >:(The so-called "Judge" should also be in prison for letting Johnny Cocks....r turn the trial into a circus >:(